getRecentChanges

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions real-time updates and lists types of changes (delays, track changes, cancellations), but doesn't address critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness guarantees, or error conditions. For a real-time data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope. The first sentence states the core function, and the second elaborates on what's included and the real-time nature. There's minimal wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (real-time operational data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context but lacks completeness. It covers what data is retrieved but doesn't address format, pagination, error handling, or limitations. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values, which it doesn't.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'evaNo' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ermittelt die neuesten Fahrplanänderungen für eine spezifische Bahnhofsstation' (retrieves the latest schedule changes for a specific train station). It specifies the verb 'ermittelt' (retrieves) and resource 'Fahrplanänderungen' (schedule changes), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on real-time operational adjustments rather than station lookup or timetable retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by mentioning 'Echtzeit aktualisiert werden' (updated in real-time), suggesting this tool is for current operational changes rather than planned timetables. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getCurrentTimetable or getPlannedTimetable, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.